RE: beanMapping or typeMapping?

[Tom Jordahl <to...@macromedia.com>]

There is no difference between the two.
beanMapping is just a convenience.


--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development



-----Original Message-----
From: Mitch Gitman [mailto:mgitman@usa.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:58 PM
To: axis-user@xml.apache.org
Subject: beanMapping or typeMapping?


I have a Java interface with bean-compliant classes I want to make into a 
web service. Running Java2WSDL, I get a bunch of complexType elements for 
these classes. Fine.

Next, I want to produce the deploy.wsdd and then the server-config.wsdd. 
Running WSDL2Java generates a bunch of classes analogous to my original 
classes. I figure, "Heck, ignore these. Stick with my own."

But WSDL2Java also generates a deploy.wsdd with a typeMapping element for 
each of these auto-generated classes. Each typeMapping has serializer and 
deserializer attributes.

If I'm just using my own classes on the server, I wonder if I'm better off 
just using beanMapping elements sans (de)serializer attributes. Under what 
circumstances is beanMapping preferable to typeMapping?
=============================================
Here's the relevant passage from docs/reference.html:
<typeMapping qname="ns:localName" classname="classname" 
serializer="classname" deserializer="classname"/>
Each typeMapping maps an XML qualified name to/from a Java class, using a 
specified Serializer and Deserializer.

<beanMapping qname="ns:localName" classname="classname">
A simplified type mapping, which uses pre-defined serializers/deserializers 
to encode/decode JavaBeans. The class named by "classname" must follow the 
JavaBean standard pattern of get/set accessors.